Dennis Fulton’s closest call as a missionary pilot wasn’t amid a hail of bullets during a flight but with armed, drunken soldiers on an airfield in the central African country of Zaire. They threatened to shoot.

“We have had hijacking; we have had hostages in the history of our organization,” says Fulton, now chief operating officer of Mission Aviation Fellowship (MAF). The Redlands, California-based ministry support organization operates more than 70 aircraft in remote regions of 24 countries. Last year it logged 41,000 flights.

But generally, he says, “Getting shot out of the sky is not a big concern.” Only six MAF planes have ever been hit by gunfire, and none of those crashed. “Being shot on the ground is another story. I’m much more concerned about driving from the house to the airport on the roads in a lot of these countries.”

On April 20, a Peruvian Air Force plane downed a Cessna belonging to the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania-based Association of Baptists for World Evangelism (ABWE), mistaking it for a drug-running craft. While the tragic deaths of ABWE missionary Veronica Bowers, 35, and her

7-month-old adopted daughter Charity may prompt agencies to rethink safety and security issues, representatives agree that doing everything by the book, as the ABWE Cessna’s pilot Kevin Donaldson apparently did, does not guarantee safety.

“We feel that this is an isolated incident,” says Arthur Lightbody, vice president of communications for JAARS (formerly the Jungle Aviation and Research Service), the Waxhaw, North Carolina-based aviation arm of Wycliffe Bible Translators. JAARS-trained pilots in 10 countries average 15,000 flights a year.

“Missions are used to chaos,” Fulton says, citing corruption and crumbling infrastructure in many countries. “What we haven’t realized is that we’ve gone from living in a crazy world to a dangerous world. That’s what we’re seeing now: the upswing in hostage-taking [and] hijackings. Those are more threats than actually being shot out of the sky.”

“There are a lot of bullet holes in missionary aircraft, especially in Africa,” says Edward H. Robinson, director of missionary aviation technology for Moody Aviation, a pilot training program in Elizabethton, Tennessee.

Those bullet holes came from ground-to-air fire, according to Chris Donesa, staff director and chief counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources.

Peru and Colombia are the primary problem countries in South America. The United States helps other governments identify drug-carrying planes. Donesa says the ABWE incident in Peru is extremely unusual.

That cooperative program has been suspended in Peru and Colombia pending the results of a U.S. government investigation. Jim Bowers, husband of Veronica, and their 6-year-old son Cory, were not hurt. Pilot Donaldson was seriously injured with multiple wounds to his legs.

Balancing Risks, Benefits

Both JAARS and MAF sometimes fly in volatile areas. MAF has pulled its workers out of Congo and Haiti several times but left its ministry infrastructure in place and later returned. But both JAARS and MAF have pulled out of Colombia, where internal warfare has raged for years. Lightbody believes that flying small aircraft to support missionaries generally is a safe activity.

“Generally, what we’re doing is not dangerous,” he says. “I would feel very secure flying with any of our aviation personnel because of the training and orientation that they have. They don’t push the limit.”

But Fulton and others acknowledge that not all dangers can be eliminated from their ministry work. “It’s a risk,” he says.

Many missionary pilots are graduates of the well-regarded Moody Aviation program, Robinson says. Moody’s missionary aviation technology program requires two years of Bible study at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago and three years of pilot and mechanic training in Elizabethton. About 25 pilots graduate from the program each year, Robinson says. About 30 to 35 missionary organizations operate aircraft, he says. The largest air fleets belong to MAF, JAARS, Africa Inland Mission, and New Tribes Mission.

Moody graduate, former MAF pilot and Moody flight instructor Joe Hopkins founded Mission Safety International (MSI) in 1983 to help mission agencies with safety. Hopkins estimates that 500 to 600 missionary aircraft log 100,000 flights annually.

Fifteen missionary planes crashed in 2000, resulting in 16 deaths and six serious injuries, he says. “Unfortunately, the missionary rate is probably equivalent to the accident rate for general aviation in the U.S.,” Hopkins says. “My goal in MSI is to help make missionary aviation as safe as flying on [commercial] airlines.”

In 1998 and 1999, there were only three fatal accidents in 16.9 million U.S. commercial flights, killing 13 people. That was a particularly safe period. In 1996, however, three fatal accidents killed 342 people in half the number of commercial flights.

Hopkins believes the higher missionary accident rate is understandable. “When you look at the conditions, too, there is some justification for that,” he says.

Missionary pilots are their own meteorologists, and they fly on no-frills airstrips, doing for themselves what other specialists would do for them in more developed settings—loading, unloading, maintenance, and scheduling. “They have to be a jack of all trades,” Hopkins says. “There are a lot of demands on a missionary pilot.”

Ministries that operate aircraft have drawn up criteria to help them decide whether to pull out of a country. MAF, Fulton says, is often among the last ministries to leave an area deemed risky. “Our service is to support the mission of the local church,” he says. “We have a fairly lengthy security checklist,” which varies from country to country.

Much depends on how crucial MAF’s presence is in a place, Fulton says. As a rule, “As long as there are missionaries, we’ll need to be there.”

While ABWE temporarily has curtailed flights in Peru, it is “absolutely not” looking to scale back its work there, says E. C. Haskell, ABWE’s director of communications.

The mission has assigned 47 full-time workers to that country. Before the April crash, its two airplanes logged a total of about 180 flights per year.

Says Haskell, “We certainly anticipate we’re going to go ahead full steam.”

Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

An Anglican bishop has been charged with genocide in Rwanda‘s ethnic slaughter of April 1994. Bishop Samuel Musabyimana, a member of the Hutu tribe, was arrested in Nairobi on May 3. He had been arrested in South Africa last year but was released following an administrative miscue. Musabyimana, a bishop in a diocese southwest of the Rwandan capital of Kigali during the genocide, is alleged to have stated publicly of the rival Tutsis that “their end had arrived.” An estimated million people died in the violence.

A new edition of Proverbs is the first book of the Bible ever published in the Uzbek language inside Uzbekistan. Half of the 10,000 copies of the 79-page booklets printed are in Cyrillic, while half are in the Latin alphabet. “This edition was published with the permission of the government,” national Bible Society Director Sergei Mitin told Compass Direct. “We really thank God for this great victory for the Word of God in Uzbekistan.”

The highest Muslim court in Nigeria (CT, Feb. 5, p. 40) accused politicians from six northern states of hypocrisy, saying they have not enforced the Islamic law these states have adopted. The National Council of Ulamas says that only the state of Zamfara is enforcing Islamic law strictly enough. That state gave 100 lashes to an unmarried, 11-year-old pregnant girl who said she was raped.

Overseas Council International, Indianapolis, Indiana, has named L. David Lewis as president and CEO. Lewis had been interim CEO of the cross-cultural leader training agency since the unexpected death of John C. Bennett in August 1999.

Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

“We have had hijacking; we have had hostages in the history of our organization,” says Fulton, now chief operating officer of Mission Aviation Fellowship (MAF). The Redlands, California-based ministry support organization operates more than 70 aircraft in remote regions of 24 countries. Last year it logged 41,000 flights.

But generally, he says, “Getting shot out of the sky is not a big concern.” Only six MAF planes have ever been hit by gunfire, and none of those crashed. “Being shot on the ground is another story. I’m much more concerned about driving from the house to the airport on the roads in a lot of these countries.”

On April 20, a Peruvian Air Force plane downed a Cessna belonging to the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania-based Association of Baptists for World Evangelism (ABWE), mistaking it for a drug-running craft. While the tragic deaths of ABWE missionary Veronica Bowers, 35, and her 7-month-old adopted daughter Charity may prompt agencies to rethink safety and security issues, representatives agree that doing everything by the book, as the ABWE Cessna’s pilot Kevin Donaldson apparently did, does not guarantee safety.

“We feel that this is an isolated incident,” says Arthur Lightbody, vice president of communications for JAARS (formerly the Jungle Aviation and Research Service), the Waxhaw, North Carolina-based aviation arm of Wycliffe Bible Translators. JAARS-trained pilots in 10 countries average 15,000 flights a year.

“Missions are used to chaos,” Fulton says, citing corruption and crumbling infrastructure in many countries. “What we haven’t realized is that we’ve gone from living in a crazy world to a dangerous world. That’s what we’re seeing now: the upswing in hostage-taking [and] hijackings. Those are more threats than actually being shot out of the sky.”

“There are a lot of bullet holes in missionary aircraft, especially in Africa,” says Edward H. Robinson, director of missionary aviation technology for Moody Aviation, a pilot training program in Elizabethton, Tennessee.

But those bullet holes came from ground-to-air fire, according to Chris Donesa, staff director and chief counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources. Peru and Colombia are the primary problem countries in South America, where the United States cooperates with other governments in shooting down planes suspected of carrying drugs. Donesa says the ABWE incident in Peru is unique.

That cooperative program has been suspended in Peru and Colombia pending the results of a U.S. government investigation. Jim Bowers, husband of Veronica, and their 6-year-old, son, Cory, were not hurt. Pilot Donaldson was seriously injured with multiple wounds to his legs.

Balancing Risks, Benefits Missionary aviators, who consider themselves guests of the countries where they work, are careful to respect local laws, obey regulations, file flight plans, know the territory, maintain relationships with authorities and with locals, heed advice on travel and safety, keep equipment in top condition, and attend safety seminars every three to four years.

Both JAARS and MAF sometimes fly in volatile areas. MAF has pulled its workers out of Congo and Haiti several times but left its ministry infrastructure in place and later returned. But both JAARS and MAF have pulled out of Colombia, where internal warfare has raged for years. Lightbody believes that flying small aircraft to support missionaries generally is a safe activity.

“Generally, what we’re doing is not dangerous,” he says. “I would feel very secure flying with any of our aviation personnel because of the training and orientation that they have. They don’t push the limit.”

But Fulton and others acknowledge that not all dangers can be eliminated from their ministry work. “It’s a risk,” he says.

Many missionary pilots are graduates of the well-regarded Moody Aviation program, Robinson says. Moody’s missionary aviation technology program requires two years of Bible study at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago and three years of pilot and mechanic training in Elizabethton. About 25 pilots graduate from the program each year, Robinson says. About 30 to 35 missionary organizations operate aircraft, he says. The largest air fleets belong to MAF, JAARS, Africa Inland Mission, and New Tribes Mission.

Moody graduate, former MAF pilot and Moody flight instructor Joe Hopkins founded Mission Safety International (MSI) in 1983 to help mission agencies with safety. Hopkins estimates that 500 to 600 missionary aircraft log 100,000 flights annually.

Fifteen missionary planes crashed in 2000, resulting in 16 deaths and six serious injuries, he says. “Unfortunately, the missionary rate is probably equivalent to the accident rate for general aviation in the U.S.,” Hopkins says. “My goal in MSI is to help make missionary aviation as safe as flying on [commercial] airlines.”

In 1998 and 1999, there were only three fatal accidents during 16.9 million domestic commercial flights, killing 13 people. That was a particularly safe period. In 1996, however, three fatal accidents killed 342 people during 8.2 million domestic commericial flights.

Hopkins believes the higher missionary accident rate is understandable. “When you look at the conditions, too, there is some justification for that,” he says.

Missionary pilots are their own meteorologists, and they fly on no-frills airstrips, doing for themselves what other specialists would do for them in more developed settings—loading, unloading, maintenance, and scheduling. “They have to be a jack of all trades,” Hopkins says. “There are a lot of demands on a missionary pilot.”

Ministries that operate aircraft have drawn up criteria to help them decide whether to pull out of a country. MAF, Fulton says, is often among the last ministries to leave an area deemed risky. “Our service is to support the mission of the local church,” he says. “We have a fairly lengthy security checklist,” which varies from country to country.

Much depends on how crucial MAF’s presence is in a place, he says. As a rule, “As long as there are missionaries, we’ll need to be there.”

While ABWE temporarily has curtailed flights in Peru, it is “absolutely not” looking to scale back its work there, says E. C. Haskell, ABWE’s director of communications

The mission has assigned 47 full-time workers to that country. Before the April crash, its two airplanes logged a total of about 180 flights per year.

Says Haskell, “We certainly anticipate we’re going to go ahead full steam.”

Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere

The ABWE has many resources about the tragedy on its site, including photos, biographical sketches of Roni Bowers and others, links to media coverage, and other items.

The aviation area of the JAARS site has an article on “The ‘Glamour’ of a Jungle Pilot,” recruiting information, and other resources.

Mission Aviation Fellowship‘s site has MAF-related news from around the world, an “e-mail a missionary” program, and other resources.

Mission Safety International‘s site doesn’t have much apart from a few paragraphs describing the organization.

Other media coverage of the shooting includes:

Peru Sees Missionary Jet Probe Concluded Next Week — Reuters (May 7, 2001)

Risking their lives for faith | The mistaken killing of a missionary and her daughter in Peru underscores the serious peril that many face. Believers say that fearlessness is the essence of their calling. — Los Angeles Times (May 5, 2001)

Downed U.S. Plane Inspected in Peru — Associated Press (May 4, 2001)

Law agencies estimate 50 planes shot or forced down in drug war — CNN (May 2, 2001)

Missionaries facing world of new perils | Hostage-takings, robberies among on-the-job risks — Chicago Tribune (Apr. 28, 2001)

Simple, devoted lives on the Amazon | Tragedy does not appear to have weakened the ardor of the five remaining American missionary families who troll the Amazon around Iquitos on their houseboats for weeks at a time, playing gospel music from loudspeakers like pied pipers playing for souls. — The New York Times (Apr. 28, 2001)

Missionaries are a daring, dauntless band inspired by faith | As a foreign correspondent in Peru, I was awed by the almost indescribable passion missionaries brought to their work. Georgie Anne Geyer, Universal Press Syndicate/Chicago Tribune (Apr. 27, 2001)

Peru missionaries face dangers | For the two dozen or so U.S. missionaries who work in northeastern Peru, it’s a life of risks. — Associated Press (Apr. 27, 2001)

The Pope was invited to visit Greece by the country’s president, Costis Stephanopoulos, and not by the Church of Greece.

The pontiff, accompanied by four cardinals, went immediately to the presidential residence in Athens and made a courtesy visit to Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens and All Greece. The Greek archbishop said the Pope’s visit “brings us joy. Our joy is, however, overshadowed by the fact of our division.”

Archbishop Christodoulos then referred to religious differences between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics, some of which date back more than 1,000 years. The Pope replied, “For the occasions past and present, when sons and daughters of the Catholic Church have sinned by action or omission against their Orthodox brothers and sisters, may the Lord grant us forgiveness.”

Peter Moschovis of the evangelical Hellenic Human Rights Watch says the Pope’s visit may lead to a softening of Orthodox suspicion. “Both the Pope and Orthodox leaders have called for Christians to present a united front against the forces of secularism in Europe,” Moschovis said. “Commentators, discussing the Pope’s visit, have rightly noted that there are three Christian churches in Europe—including Protestants—and that we need to cooperate more fully, especially on social issues.”

John Paul, also visiting Syria’s capital, Damascus, made similar efforts to build bridges by reaching out to Muslims and their leaders.

After exchanging gifts with Mufti Kuftaro, John Paul said in a speech to dozens of Syrian Christian and Islamic leaders and scholars, “For all the times that Muslims and Christians have offended one another, we need to seek forgiveness.”

The Pope’s visit was part of his plan to build dialogue between the three monotheistic faiths—Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.

Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Part 1:Introduction | John Sanders 1 | Chris Hall 1 | Sanders 2 | Hall 2

Part 2:John Sanders 3 | Chris Hall 3 | Sanders 4 | Hall 4 | Sanders 5 | Postscript

Implications of the Openness Model

Dear John,

What are the implications of the openness position for our understanding of God, God’s knowledge of and relationship to the future, and God’s relationship to time itself? I’m focusing on the issue of the extent of God’s foreknowledge and God’s relationship to time because it is at these two specific junctures that openness theology clearly moves beyond classical Arminianism, and indeed, classical theism. In addition, I think it’s fair to say that if the theological implications of a given model prove untenable, it is best to rethink and reconstruct the model.

Finally, I’d argue that the implications of openness theology are still only bubbling to the surface of the church’s consciousness, for good or for ill. The openness model, as Nicholas Wolterstorff has commented, is acting much like a strong tug on a thread dangling from a sweater. When one pulls on the thread, how far will the fabric of classical Christian orthodoxy unravel? If we posit that God’s foreknowledge is limited, for instance, what other doctrines will require significant revision? Let me mention a few very troubling implications of the openness model.

The openness model surely allows, indeed, describes situations in which God, on the basis of acquiring knowledge that God did not possess in the past, can and does reassess his own past actions. I find this position to be deeply flawed, largely because it well nigh necessitates that God will make mistakes, however unintentional. How can God help but err if God acts on the basis of what he thinks humans may do, but can’t be entirely sure of how they will act or respond in a given situation? The result is a God who is constantly learning, is sometimes taken by surprise, and who occasionally acts in a mistaken fashion on the basis of a misdiagnosis of the future.

The plausibility of openness exegesis must be tested by the implications it produces. While conservative openness theologians affirm the authority of Scripture and treat it with great seriousness, we are faced with the irony that openness exegesis leads to a devalued view of God. We are presented with a God who fumbles along like the rest of us, trying to do what seems best, but often ruing what he has done in the light of how things actually turn out. Yes, God responds to his creation, but these responses might well turn out to be wrong, at least when viewed from the fuller knowledge God will possess in the future. How often might God prove to be wrong? And in what circumstances?

Isaiah contends that what sets Yahweh apart from all false gods is Yahweh’s wondrous ability to know the future. This characteristic is part of the great glory of Yahweh that sets him apart from the false idols Israel is continually tempted to worship (Isa. 41:21-24). Sadly, it is this very glory that fades dramatically in the openness model.

With warm greetings,Chris

John Sanders replies, next page.

Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Part 1:Introduction | John Sanders 1 | Chris Hall 1 | Sanders 2 | Hall 2

Part 2:John Sanders 3 | Chris Hall 3 | Sanders 4 | Hall 4 | Sanders 5 | Postscript

Dear John,

How about your interpretation of Judas’s betrayal of Jesus? I would argue that this narrative clearly demonstrates God’s perfect and complete knowledge of the future. Jesus is not caught off guard by Judas’s action. Rather, Jesus demonstrates a full awareness of what Judas is soon to do (Matt. 26:23-25). Perhaps even more telling, however, is the comment of Matthew that the purchase of the potter’s field with Judas’s blood money and its subsequent naming as the “Field of Blood” fulfilled a prophecy of Jeremiah made hundreds of years before the event (Matt. 27:5-10).

I find your interpretation of the Judas narrative [outlined in a previous unpublished e-mail] to be both selective and strained. First, you appear to base your explanation of Judas’s actions on the highly idiosyncratic interpretation of William Klassen, a study you argue “demonstrates that Judas was not ‘betraying’ Jesus.” Is Judas, as Klassen and you seem to believe, acting to bring the high priest and Jesus together so that they “could resolve their differences and bring about needed reforms”? When Jesus tells Judas to “[d]o quickly what you are going to do,” does this instruction truly violate “a fundamental rule of Judaism” by telling Judas “to go out and deliberately commit a sin”? You appear convinced by Klassen, writing that “in this light it is clear that Judas is not betraying Jesus and that Jesus is not issuing any prediction of such activity.” I remain unconvinced, especially because of the role Jesus assigns to Satan in Judas’s activities.

Second, you argue that paradidomi “does not mean ‘betray’ to the temple authorities.” Why not? Liddell and Scott [in Liddell-Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon] provide clear instances in secular Greek sources where paradidomi does mean betray. If so, why can’t it mean betray here?

Third, you write that “because Judas has come to symbolize villainy, we tend to think that Jesus’ words are clear and that everything is working out according to some foreordained plan.” I don’t agree. Judas is almost invariably considered a villain in the history of interpretation because that is precisely how Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John portray him. John, for example, gives us a glimpse into Judas’s character when he explains the motive behind Judas’s objection to Jesus’ anointing at Bethany. “He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.” If such was Judas’s character, it seems plausible to me to view his betrayal of Jesus as an opportunity for Judas to make a quick buck that goes terribly awry; I don’t think Judas realized his short-sighted action would lead to Jesus’ death.

While you don’t see the Judas narrative linked “to some foreordained plan,” Matthew clearly makes such a connection through his reference to Jeremiah’s prophecy (Matt. 27:9-10). Peter also distinctly connects Judas’s actions and fate to a prophecy spoken “through the mouth of David” (Acts 1:16). Neither Matthew’s nor Peter’s comments make sense if this predictive/prophetic element is drained out of the Judas narrative.

As I mentioned earlier, strikingly absent from your discussion of Judas is any mention of the role of Satan in the whole affair, while Matthew insists that “Satan entered Judas” the evening of the Last Supper, indicating that demonic motivation or inspiration lay behind Judas’s thoughts and actions (cf. Matt. 22:3). Not only so, but John had previously informed his reader of the shady character of Judas. Jesus, it seems to me, clearly predicts Judas’s betrayal in John 13, just as he predicted the exact number of times Peter would betray Jesus.

How, by the way, could Jesus possibly know that Peter would choose to deny him three times if God cannot know beforehand the choices of free individuals, a position held by many openness theologians? Was Peter not free? Did God force him to deny Jesus? Was he simply a puppet? If so, why would Jesus consider him morally responsible for his actions and call him to repentance and renewal in John 21?

Blessings,Chris

John Sanders replies, next page.

Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Part 1:Introduction | John Sanders 1 | Chris Hall 1 | Sanders 2 | Hall 2

Part 2:John Sanders 3 | Chris Hall 3 | Sanders 4 | Hall 4 | Sanders 5 | Postscript

Dear Chris,

Regarding my interpretation of Judas’s sin and Peter’s denial, please realize that not all proponents of openness agree with my particular understanding. Not all Calvinists agree on how to interpret each passage either. In my book, I do say that it is not necessary to agree with Klassen’s interpretation, so I go on to give other possible readings compatible with openness. L. D. McCabe, a 19th-century Methodist openness proponent, believes God removed the free will of Judas and Peter in these particular circumstances in order to accomplish his purposes. Thus, they were not morally responsible for their actions. But then you ask, if Peter is not morally responsible, then why does Christ rebuke him for his actions in John 21? McCabe’s answer, in my opinion, needs some modification.

If I were to go in this direction, I would highlight Jesus’ statement in Luke 22:31 that Satan is after Peter, which is why Jesus tries three times to get the disciples to pray with and for him in Gethsemane. They needed to be spiritually prepared for the events ahead. They let him down and were not properly prepared. Peter was to have a special role in God’s forthcoming work, so God works especially with him. At this point, I would modify McCabe and say that Peter was free to acknowledge his relationship with Jesus, but he was spiritually unprepared to do so. Jesus knew this well and made the prediction. All that need be determined by God in this case would be to have someone question Peter three times and a rooster crow.

As for Judas, all three synoptic Gospels say that Judas made his agreement with the authorities before Jesus announced that one of the disciples will hand him over. Jesus’ statement is not “out of the blue.” It is likely that Jesus and Judas have been discussing the issue. You cite Matthew 27:9 to claim that this happened to “fulfill” prophecy, arguing that it was part of God’s foreordained plan. However, if you examine the texts Matthew cites (Zech. 11:12; Jer. 32:6-9), you will discover that these are not predictions about future events at all! Matthew does the same thing in 2:15 when he claims that Hosea 11:1 has been “fulfilled.” However, Hosea 11:1 is not a prediction but a statement of historical fact. Does Matthew not know how to read Scripture?

The problem is not with Matthew but with us, since we are the ones who see the word fulfilled and jump to the conclusion that these Old Testament texts must have been predictions of future events. Not at all. Rather, Matthew is using the word fulfilled here to say that what happened in the past is happening again. He is appropriating these Old Testament texts for events in the life of Jesus. To borrow an idea from one of the early Fathers, we could say that these Old Testament passages are “recapitulated” in the life of Jesus and so are “fulfilled.” We really do need to grasp how Matthew used the term. Again, I do not believe these are the only possible interpretations available to openness. We shall have to see if others arise.

By the way, though you address Genesis 22:12, you have not answered how you interpret the wide array of biblical texts that, in my view, teach that God grieves, responds to us, and changes his mind. You have not given me one biblical reason why I should believe God is not affected by us.

Looking forward to your next letter,John

Chris Hall replies, next page.

Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Part 1:Introduction | John Sanders 1 | Chris Hall 1 | Sanders 2 | Hall 2

Part 2:John Sanders 3 | Chris Hall 3 | Sanders 4 | Hall 4 | Sanders 5 | Postscript

Dear Chris,

No theological position, including my own, is free of difficulties. Sometimes it comes down to deciding which problems we are willing to live with. However, I don’t believe my problems are as severe as you suggest, and your view has some rather unsavory implications that I shall mention. To begin, you claim that according to Isaiah 41:21-24, what sets God apart from false gods is Yahweh’s ability to know the future. Please read the text carefully along with 46:9-10 and 48:3-5. The glory of Yahweh is not that he simply knows what is going to happen. Rather, it is that he can declare what will happen and bring it about—that it does, in fact, occur. Isaiah is not touting foreknowledge but contrasting Yahweh’s power with the impotence of the other gods.

Next, you are correct that openness modifies traditional Arminian theology regarding divine foreknowledge and timelessness. Nonetheless, we agree with the free-will tradition in Christian theology against those, like you, who deny both that God can be affected by us and that humans have genuine free will. These are the watershed issues in our debate! Thus, we are solidly on the Arminian side of the fence. However, we do have some family squabbles with our fellow free-will theists and only time will tell whether Arminians and openness theists can resolve their differences.

You claim that if God does not tightly control all that we do, and if God does not know with absolute certainty what we shall do in the future, then God just “fumbles along like the rest of us.” This is hardly the case. God knows all the past and all the present completely and has the wisdom and power necessary to work with us, often in spite of us, in order to achieve his purposes. Do we sometimes fail to do what God wants us to do? According to classical theism, no. But according to openness and Arminianism, yes, we can sometimes thwart God’s will. The only way to guarantee that God’s will is never thwarted is for God to micromanage everything, and this is the position of classical theism. Arminianism and openness, however, believe that God grants us free will, and so it is possible that we can go against God’s will.

The key issue is not whether God foreknows what we will do, since Arminians believe God foreknows our evil actions but does not control them. Rather, the crucial point is whether God tightly controls each and every thing we do. As an aside, I’m astounded that our critics fail to realize that many of their criticisms (e.g., we are “Pelagian,” God is not in control, etc.) apply just as much to traditional Arminianism.

Since you believe that nothing happens except what God specifically ordains to occur, you logically conclude that God wants each and every rape, act of incest, and other atrocities to occur. So God wants little girls abused? And you think our view diminishes God’s glory! John Wesley was correct to describe classical theism’s understanding of God’s love as “a love that makes the blood run cold.”

Here are some of the implications of openness theology: God does not want women to be abused or children tortured. God is implacably opposed to sin, but because God does not tightly control us, we can do horrible things to one another, things that grieve God. God does not arbitrarily select some humans for salvation by giving them irresistible grace. Rather, God gives us enabling grace by which we may accept, but can also reject, the divine love. The Scriptures clearly teach that God is open to being influenced by our prayers. In fact, God makes some of his decisions contingent upon our intercessions for one another, so prayer really does make a difference. The openness view places more value on intercessory and petitionary prayer than any other view. The openness view exalts God’s gracious working with us and his entering into genuine give-and-take relations with us. The openness view exalts the true glory of God—the way we see God working with us in Scripture.

Having listed several of our differences, I would be remiss if I failed to observe that, as brothers in Christ, we share much in common. For instance, we both affirm that Jesus is the incarnate Son of God who lived, died, and rose again on behalf of sinners. We both agree on the authority of Scripture, even though we do not interpret every text the same. Moreover, as evangelicals we share belief in the importance of prayer, an active discipleship under the leading of the Holy Spirit, and the need for an ongoing personal relationship with God. Of course, we share more than these in common, but the point is that we share a common core of Christian values and beliefs that make us Christian as opposed to Hindu, and our theological differences must not overshadow our shared Christian faith.

Your fellow follower of Jesus,John

Where Do We Go from Here? A joint postscript, next page.

Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.